The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10-318OCTOBER 12, 2010 10 -318 ORDINANCE FIRST READING (CARRIED LOST LAID OVER WITHDRAWN ) PURPOSE: APPROVE ZONE CHANGE FROM M -3 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL TO R -3 MULTIPLE DWELLING WTIH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY / VACANT LOT NORTHWEST CORNER OF MASON STREET AND OSBORN AVENUE INITIATED BY: THOMAS RUSCH ETAL, OWNER PLAN COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approved A GENERAL ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF OSHKOSH AMENDING SECTION 30 -16 (B) OF THE OSHKOSH MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO ZONING DISTRICTS. The Common Council of the City of Oshkosh do ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 30 -16(B) of the Oshkosh Municipal Code pertaining to Zoning Districts and the map therein described is hereby amended by changing the district character of the following described area from M -3 General Industrial to R -3 Multiple Dwelling with a Planned Development Overlay. All of Lots 7, 13 & 14, excluding the west 486 ft. and that portion lying west of Mason Street and north of Osborn Avenue, being part of the NE Y4 of Section 27, 13th Ward, City of Oshkosh, Winnebago County, Wisconsin, plus public right -of -way abutting said lots extending to the centerlines of Mason Street and Osborn Avenue. SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and publication. SECTION 3. Publication Notice. Please take notice that the City of Oshkosh enacted Ordinance #10 -XXX APPROVE ZONE CHANGE FROM M -3 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL TO R -3 MULTIPLE DWELLING WTIH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERLAY / VACANT LOT NORTHWEST CORNER OF MASON STREET AND OSBORN AVENUE on October 26, 2010. The Ordinance changes the zoning classification to R -3 PD. The full text of the Ordinance may be obtained at the Office of the City Clerk, 215 Church Ave. and on the City's website at www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us Clerk's phone: (920) 236 -5011. L> o n o � 1 12 1 1 IJ LU C O �` U 0 o KENSINGTON AVE. ^ 143 13 3 W. 12TH AVE. 141 �> �`'dy Q 1230 u 1240 D 1280 1270 1250 t 1260 x F v , Y I DISCLAIMER This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and it is not intended to be used as one. Rezone From M -3 City of Oshkosh Wisconsin Community Development This drawing is a compilation of records, data and information located in various city, county ad state offices and other sources affecting n To R -3 PD N the area shown and it is to be used for reference 1 = 200 10/7/2010 purposes only. The City of Oshkosh is not re- sponsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepencies are found, please contact the City of Oshkosh. Created by - D A JHKO1 H ON THE WATER TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Common Council FROM: Darryn Burichh Director of Planning Services DATE: October 5, 2010 RE: Approve Zone Change from M -3 General Industrial to R -3 Multiple Dwelling with a Planned Development Overlay / Vacant Lot Northwest Corner of Mason Street and Osborn Avenue (Plan Commission Recommends Approval) BACKGROUND The 4.6 acre parcel included within this rezoning request is located at the northwest corner of Osborn Avenue and Mason Street and is currently undeveloped open space. The property is a corner lot with approximately 500 feet of frontage on Osborn Avenue and approximately 470 feet of frontage on Mason Street. The property is bound on the north with an established single family neighborhood, vacant industrial (formerly Strey Construction) on the west, mini - warehousing on the east across Mason Street and the Vulcan Quarry on the south across Osborn Avenue. ANALYSIS The purpose of the rezoning request from the M -3 General Industrial District to the R -3 Multiple Dwelling District is to allow the applicant to design and develop multiple family housing on the property consisting of six eight -unit apartment buildings (48 units) with accessory garages. The City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use map identifies this area as appropriate for residential use and the development of multiple family housing could act as a "buffer" between the existing warehousing and quarry operations to the south and east and the adjacent single - family neighborhood to the north. The probability of a single or two- family housing subdivision being successful at this location is debatable and, as currently zoned, the property would allow a myriad of heavy industrial uses with the application of a building permit only. The proposed R -3 zoning would limit development to much more restricted uses. Staff is concerned with the rezoning of this one individual property without also rezoning the property to the west which could be problematic by allowing the development of residential uses surrounded on three sides with industrial zoning designation. Therefore, staff would recommend that both properties remain industrially zoned or zoned for residential use which would remove potential use conflicts on the adjacent properties. The owner of the adjacent parcel was contacted regarding the rezoning request however he did not desire to change the zoning designation on his property. The Plan Commission felt a zoning designation of R -3 Multiple Dwelling District with a planned development overlay would be more appropriate as it would allow for review and approval of any development plans by the Plan Commission and Common Council prior to construction. FISCAL IMPACT None anticipated. RECOMMENDATION The Plan Commission recommended approval of a rezoning from M -3 General Industrial to R -3 Multiple Dwelling with a Planned Development Overlay for the applicant's property at its September 21, 2010 meeting. Approved, City Manager ITEM: ZONE CHANGE FROM M -3 GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT TO R -3 MULTIPLE DWELLING DISTRICT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF OSBORN AVENUE AND MASON STREET Plan Commission meeting of September 21, 2010 GENERAL INFORMATION Applicant: Thomas Rusch Owner: Richard L. Gabert & Thomas N. Rusch Action(s) Requested: Zone change from M -3 General Industrial District to R -3 Multiple Dwelling District is requested for review and approval to allow the development of multiple family housing on the property. Applicable Ordinance Provisions: The Zoning Ordinance does not establish criteria relative to appropriateness of changing zoning but relic's on recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, redevelopment plans and sound planning principles. Property Location and Background Information: The 4.6 acre parcel included within this rezoning request is located at the northwest corner of Osborn Avenue and Mason Street and is currently undeveloped open space. The property is a corner lot with approximately 500 feet of frontage on Osborn Avenue and approximately 470 feet of frontage on Mason Street. The property is bound on the north with an established single family neighborhood, vacant industrial (formerly Strey Construction) on the west, mini - warehousing on the east across Mason Street and the Vulcan Quarry on the south across Osborn Avenue. ;ub'ect Site Existing Land Use Zonin Vacant/Undeveloped M -3 Adiacent Land Use and Gonm Existin Uses 10 Year Land Use Recommendation Zonin North Single - Family Residences .. . ........ _ R-1 . .................. .. South Industrial - Active Quarry (across Osborn Avenue) M -3 East Industrial _.... ..... West .. Vacant Industrial - Former Contractor Yard M -3 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Recommendation Land Use 10 Year Land Use Recommendation Residential 20 Year Land Use Recommendation Residential ANALYSIS The purpose of the rezoning request from the M -3 General Industrial District to the R -3 Multiple Dwelling District is to allow the applicant to design and develop multiple family housing on the property. The application material indicates that the petitioner proposes to develop six eight -unit apartment buildings (48 units) with accessory garages on the site; however plans for the proposed development are not included with the application material. The City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map identifies this area as appropriate for residential use and a zone change to an R -3 Multiple Dwelling District is being requested. The Comprehensive Plan does not differentiate between single, two or multiple family within its residential land -use recommendations and relies on a case -by -case review to determine appropriateness of individual designations. For the proposed 48 dwelling unit project proposal, the R -3 designation is appropriate as it is the City's lowest density multiple family dwelling district and requires a minimum of 3,000 square feet of land area per dwelling unit, thereby allowing a maximum of 67 dwelling units (which is also dependent on land area being available for necessary building setbacks, accessory parking placement, stormwater management facilities, etc.). Staff understands why and does not disagree with the multiple family dwelling designation being requested by the applicant as the development of multiple family could potentially act as a "buffer" between the existing warehousing and quarry operations to the south and east and the adjacent existing low- density single - family neighborhood to the north. The probability of a single or two - family housing subdivision being successful at this location is questionable, especially in the current housing market and the multiple family dwelling use may be the highest and best use of land that is designated for residential use. Additionally, as currently zoned, the property would allow a myriad of industrial uses (some very heavy) with the simple application of a building permit where the proposed zoning would limit development to much more restricted uses (see attached use comparison tables). Staff is concerned that the rezoning of this one individual property without also rezoning the property to the west could be problematic by allowing the development of residential uses surrounded on three sides with industrial zoning designation. For this reason, staff feels that either both properties should remain industrially zoned or, for consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, both be zoned for residential use. By tying the two lots together in zoning and therefore allowable uses, it will remove potential use conflicts on the adjacent properties as well as remove barriers (such as transition yards and landscape requirements) associated with the protection of less restricted uses and zoning (industrial) when adjacent to more restrictive (residential). The owner of the adjacent property was contacted to inquire on the desirability of voluntarily including the his property in the rezoning but the owner felt a rezoning at this time would limit the lands marketability as well as increase the taxes and therefore will not voluntarily include his property in the rezoning request. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends denial of the individual lot zone change from M -3 General Industrial District to R -3 Multiple Dwelling District as requested, but recommends approval of a zone change for the subject property and the adjacent property to the west. The Plan Commission approved of the zone change for the subject property only. The following is the Plan Commission's discussion on this item. Mr. Nau presented the item and reviewed the site and surrounding area including the zoning classifications and existing land uses. He stated that the multiple family development proposed would consist of six Item - Rezone NW Osborn & Mason 2 buildings containing 48 units total. He also reviewed the Comprehensive Plan which recommends residential use for this area and explained that staff was recommending denial of the zone change for the individual lot but approval of the zone change for the subject property and the adjacent property to the west. Mr. Burich added that Mr. Strey was approached regarding changing his property to the R -3 zoning classification as well as Mr. Rusch's property to make the adjacent lots consistent and he was not supportive of the suggested zone change. If the request would be approved for only the Rusch property it would result in the Strey property remaining as an M -3 zoning classification which would allow for an industrial use to be established at this site. He also suggested that a planned development overlay could be added to the zone change request to allow for further review of any development on these sites prior to the use being established. Mr. Thorns inquired about the zoning classification to the east where the storage units are located. Mr. Burich responded that the zoning classification on this site was also M -3. Mr. Thoms then questioned if this property could also be included in the zone change request. Mr. Burich replied that it could be done with a planned development overlay option however the R -3 zoning classification without the planned development overlay would make the existing storage unit use a nonconforming use on the site. Mr. Hinz asked for clarification of the action being considered today and if it would only affect the Rusch property. Mr. Burich responded that the petitioner is requesting the zone change for his site only however staff was recommending the zone change be applied to both sites to establish consistent uses in the area to avoid creating a situation that would result in a residential site being surrounded by manufacturing uses on three sides. The planned development overlay suggested could be added to both properties to ensure review authority of potential uses prior to being established. Ms. Propp commented that the Plan Commission was not in the habit of rezoning lands not requested by the property owner. Mr. Burich responded that the Plan Commission had reviewed several rezoning requests of areas where current zoning is not consistent with existing uses such as the recent Knapp Street downzone where all the property owners were not in agreement Ms. Propp questioned if this was an appropriate action. Mr. Burich replied that the Comprehensive Plan recommends residential use for this area and he felt it was in the best interest of the community to change the zoning to be consistent with this recommendation. Mr. Palmeri inquired if Mr. Strey was approached regarding the zone change to his property. Mr. Burich responded affirmatively and stated that Mr. Strey was not interested in having his site changed to a residential zoning classification. Mr. Palmeri then inquired if Mr. Rusch had discussed his proposed development with the neighboring property owners. Item - Rezone NW Osborn & Mason Mr. Burich replied that he did not believe there was any contact with the neighbors as there were numerous inquiries with the Planning Services office in regard to concerns from neighbors that were opposed to any multiple family residential housing at this location. Mr. Nau stated that he had a statement from Dennis Schneider, 1425 Kensington Avenue, which was mailed to our office stating that he was opposed to a R -3 zoning classification but would be supportive of a R -1 zoning designation. He also had an email from Bea Halfen, 1125 Armory Place, which listed a number of reasons that she was opposed to apartments at this location or the approval of a R -3 zoning classification for this site. He summarized her statements which addressed issues such as her concerns with the density of the development, residential property being developed on the site while the Vulcan Quarry was still operational, the preservation of the Huntington Downs neighborhood, and that she felt the area should remain open space as it currently exists. Mr. Bowen commented that it appeared there were several different options to be considered with this request such as changing the individual site only to a R -3 zoning classification or a R -3PD classification, or changing both sites to either one of these zoning designations. Mr. Vajgrt inquired if the proposed apartments would be low income housing. Mr. Nau responded that this factor was not known at this time. Joe Schirger, 1355 Cambridge Avenue, stated that he was concerned with the density of the proposed development and the traffic problems it could create particularly on Osborn Avenue and Knapp Street. He further stated that he would find single family homes or duplexes acceptable but had concerns how the development of apartments at this location would impact the property values of homes in the neighborhood. Ron Abitz, 1125 Canterbury Drive, questioned how long the Comprehensive Plan has been in existence as there are storage units and the Armory in the neighborhood and he did not understand how the Plan could recommend this area to be residential with these existing uses. He also commented that he did not feel it was fair to force Mr. Strey to pay taxes on R -3 zoned property rather than M -3 if he did not wish to rezone his site. He believed that the City had offered to purchase the quarry property at one time and he also had concerns about an access road on the Strey property and if it would continue to exist. He voiced his concerns about what type of housing would be developed on the site and stated that he was opposed to low - income apartments but would find R -1 zoning for single - family homes acceptable. He also inquired how the storage units were allowed to be established on the adjacent site. Mr. Burich responded that the site was zoned M -3 which is General Industrial District and this zoning classification allows uses such as storage units. Mr. Abitz also inquired about the zoning designation for the Armory property adjacent to the site owned by Mr. Strey. Mr. Nau replied that the Armory property is zoned R -1 as it is classified as an institutional type use. He added that the Vulcan Quarry site was recommended for passive recreational use in the Comprehensive Plan when it is no longer operational. Mr. Burich added that any change in use on the Armory site would require approval by both the Plan Commission and Common Council. Item -Re- NW Osborn & Mason Cindy Smith, 1345 Kensington Avenue, stated that she has lived there since 1993 and does not want to live near apartments. She further stated that she purchased the property for the privacy it provided and the trees along the lot line of the Strey and Rusch properties provide additional privacy for her home. She voiced her concerns with the lighting, increased noise, destruction of her privacy, and children playing in the quarry or on the Strey property. She commented that she was told that nothing would ever be developed on these ]lots and her concerns that the ground on the Strey site was contaminated. She felt that single - family homes could be acceptable on this site but preferred to not have them developed either. She also had concerns regarding the blasting done on the quarry property which is disturbing and does not want to see the Strey property rezoned to residential. Kevin Diedrich, 1330 Kensington Avenue, stated that he was opposed to the apartment development on this site and questioned if any traffic flow studies had been completed for the additional vehicles that will be accessing the streets in the surrounding area. He also stated that he had concerns with the stability of the proposed structures due to the blasting operations in the quarry facility and the safety of the children in their neighborhood due to the increased density on the site that would add to the traffic congestion in the vicinity. He commented that he would find R -1 zoning acceptable. Tom Rusch, 3801 State Road 21, displayed a diagram of the proposed apartment development and stated that Mr. Strey has a 75 foot easement on the north side of his property and that he did not have any intentions of removing the existing trees on the north side of the lot. He commented that he has been building apartments in Oshkosh for the past 43 years and distributed photographs of some of his existing apartment developments. He stated that the proposed units would be typical apartments with detached garages comparable to the photos he distributed and that several more of these developments were already established around the city. He discussed some of the history of the area on Osborn Avenue and how it became zoned for industrial use. He felt that the proposed apartment development would be a better and more compatible use than the heavy industrial uses that could be established on the site with the current zoning designation. Mr. Thoms inquired if Mr. Rusch had contacted Mr. Strey in regard to purchasing his property. Mr. Rusch responded that he had done so a few years ago. Mr. Thoms also questioned if the issue of increased traffic in the Kensington Avenue area had been researched. Mr. Rusch replied that he anticipated that the streets that would handle the main traffic flow from the apartments would be Osborn Avenue, Knapp Street, and Mason Street and he did not foresee an increase in traffic in the Kensington Avenue neighborhood. Mr. Fojtik inquired if he had concerns with the operations at the Vulcan Quarry. Mr. Rusch responded negatively. Ms. Propp questioned if the office building next to the storage units was vacant. Mr. Rusch replied that they use one of the offices and the other one is currently vacant but may be rented as of next month. Ms. Propp also questioned if the high voltage lines in the area were a concern. Item -Rezone NW Osborn & Mason Mr. Rusch replied that he did not have concerns with the lines. They exist in other areas of the country and had not caused any incidents to his knowledge in the past. Ms. Propp inquired if he was aware that he would have to come back to the Plan Commission and Common Council with the proposed plans for the development and if he had any issues with this. Mr. Rusch responded that he was willing to do whatever was required to move forward with his project which would entail free standing brick apartment buildings. He noted that the driveway shown on the diagram was not there and will be omitted as the ingress and egress from the site would be on Osborn Avenue and Mason Street. Mr. Burich stated that the planned development overlay that was discussed previously would be the only mechanism that would require additional review for the proposed development and if a zoning classification of R -3 only was approved, no additional review would be necessary as it would be a permitted use in this district. Mr. Palmeri questioned if the neighbors had been contacted regarding the proposed development. Mr. Rusch replied negatively. Mr. Hinz inquired if the trees would be remaining on both the Strey and Rusch properties along the north property line. Mr. Rusch responded that there was one tree in the center of the site that would have to come down but the remaining trees would be preserved. He further commented that he has apartment developments on both Ninth Avenue and Highway 41 and State Highway 44 with no buffers in between the apartments and the single family homes adjacent to the site without issue. Mr. Palmeri stated that the City recently bought some properties because of potential methane issues near an abandoned quarry and questioned what assurances we have that there will not be an environmental issue in the future with this site. He also suggested that perhaps some further studies should be completed on the site before allowing any development to proceed. Mr. Burich stated that the methane issues that required the acquisition of several homes on Knapp Street and West South Park Avenue was due to the filling of the abandoned quarry with garbage and this was not the case with the Vulcan Quarry. Mr. Palmeri then questioned if the blasting operations at the quarry would create issues with the structures proposed on the adjacent site. Mr. Burich responded that the City had no way to test for this type of issue and it would be the responsibility of Mr. Rusch to investigate the matter. He further commented that there is residential development adjacent to the quarry on Knapp Street and South Park and there were no issues to date that he was aware of where the city has had to condemn the houses because of structural failure. Mr. Palmeri commented that the City should be concerned that no structural or soil issues exist prior to development. Mr. Burich replied that the City can not get involved with these types of issues and he has not heard of any structural problems in this area however engineering studies could be requested if deemed necessary. Item - Rezone NW Osborn & Mason Mr. Palmeri stated that the citizens in the residential development to the north are apparently not happy with the proposed apartments and the petitioner has not had any communications with these neighbors. He felt that the Commission should request that this conversation take place before moving forward with this request. Mr. Thorns commented that issues could not be addressed regarding the proposed development without a planned development overlay being placed on the site. He further commented that he did not understand why the neighbors had objections to the R -3 zoning classification but had no objections to the M -3 zoning classification that currently exists on the site. He felt that the planned development overlay seems to be the best decision for all involved as approving the zone change without knowing what will be built there could be problematic. Mr. Burich stated that the planned development overlay can address issues of what will be developed on the site prior to it being constructed. Mr. Bowen commented that he agreed with Mr. Thoms and as it sits right now a distribution center or some other type of heavy manufacturing use could be established on this site and the Plan Commission or the Common Council would have no say in the matter as it would be an allowable use. He further commented that any development of the site will impact the neighborhood however the only request being considered today is the rezoning of the property and no development of the site would be approved at this time. The planned development overlay on one or both of these properties should be imperative to ensure review of any proposed plans prior to proceeding with development. Ms. Propp questioned if we could leave the M -3 zoning classification on the Strey property with a planned development overlay. Mr. Burich responded that the planned development overlay does not prevent a manufacturing use from being established on this site. Ms. Propp stated that it is not practical to place a planned development overlay on the storage unit property as the use on this site already exists. She also commented that it is unrealistic to place a R -1 zoning classification on this area as she did not feel the site would be appropriate for single family homes. Mr. Burich commented that the storage units are not usually built to the highest standards and could be removed at some point. He suggested that this site could be considered for a zone change in the future. Mr. Hinz stated that the rezoning request was the issue at hand today and there would be no plans for review at this time however a manufacturing use on this site is not desirable. The planned development overlay would provide protection for the neighborhood and leave room for further input from the community and the City prior to any development being established. Mr. Palmeri commented that he felt the City and the Department of Community Development are putting citizens in a position to accept a proposed development they do not desire to see at this location instead of another possible development that they also do not want. He felt Mr. Rusch should initiate a meeting with the neighbors to discuss his plans and he was not ready to vote on this request at this time. Mr. Thorns stated that all developers are not required to hold neighborhood meetings prior to bringing an item forward for review by the Plan Commission and he did not feel it was fair to ask Mr. Rusch to do this when other developers are not held to the same standard. An ordinance should be passed by the Common Item -Re =one NW Osborn & Mason 7 Council making this a requirement for all developers rather than single out certain requests. He also commented that the Commission does not want to create development pockets of spot zoning in any area but we have to consider the zone change of this site as that is the petitioner's request presented today. He did not think it was necessary to have the developer incur the costs of preparing full development plans at this point until it is known if the rezoning request would be approved. Mr. Palmeri felt that the item should be laid over to a future meeting until matters could be worked out with the neighbors who are opposed to this development. Mr. Burich stated that Commission members could opt to lay the item over if they felt it appropriate. Ms. Propp commented that she had mixed feelings about the issue as Osborn Avenue has mostly industrial type uses currently although some of the other uses make the area sort of a mixture of various uses. She did not feel that an industrial use on this site would be appropriate however residential use may also not be desirable with both adjacent lots remaining with a M -3 zoning classification. She also commented that she was not comfortable with rezoning the Strey property if the owner was not agreeable to the change. Mr. Bowen stated that a neighborhood meeting is not a requirement of the City and he had concerns with holding off on this request for the developer to meet with the neighbors as the neighbor's desires may not be financially feasible in which case the rezoning request would not proceed and it could result in both of these lots left with a M -3 zoning classification. If the developer decides to abandon the development plans, we may not be able to facilitate any zone change to this area whatsoever in the future. He felt the planned development overlay would be the most advantageous choice as it would provide the opportunity for further review of the development plans and he would not support laying this request over until a later meeting. Mr. Fojtik agreed. Mr. Nollenberger commented that a neighborhood meeting could take place before the development plans are brought forward for Plan Commission and Common Council review. Motion by Nollenberger to approve the zone change from M -3 General Industrial District to R -3 Multiple Dwelling District with a planned development overlay for property located at the northwest corner of Osborn Avenue and Mason Street as requested. Seconded by Propp. Mr. Palmeri stated that both the Plan Commission and Common Council would have less difficulty approving development plans for this site with input from neighboring property owners. Mr. Thoms stated that he felt this action was too narrowly focused and would not support it. This will leave the Strey property with a M -3 zoning classification and we should at least put a planned development overlay on the property to provide some review authority for any development of the site. Mr. Nollenberger questioned if that issue should be addressed with a separate motion. Mr. Burich responded that the items could be separated and considered with two individual votes. Mr. Thorns suggested that staff could address the other two properties (Strey's property and the site with the storage units) at a meeting in October. He also supported the initiating of a neighborhood meeting to discuss the development plans for the Rusch property. Item -Rezone NW Osborn & Mason 8 Motion carried 7 -1. ( Ayes- Bowen /Fojtik/Hinz/ Palmeri /Propp/Vajgrt/Nollenberger. Nays - Thoms.) Motion by Nollenberger requesting staff initiate a neighborhood meeting between the developer and the citizens in the neighborhood as soon as possible relating to the proposed development of the site and requesting staff to consider rezoning of the Strey property. Seconded by Palmeri. Motion carried 7 -1. ( Ayes- Bowen/Fojtik/Hinz/ Palmeri /Propp/Vajgrt /Nollenberger. Nays - Thorns.) Item - Rezone NW Osborn & Mason R -3 to M-3 Zoning Use Comparison P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use X = Not Allowed P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use X = Not Allowed USE R -3 M -3 Accessory Structure P P Acid Manufacturer X C Agricultural X X Airstrips/Landing Field (agricultural related) X X Animal Hospital (excluding open kennel) X P Animal Husbandry X X Antique Sales X P Appliance Manufacturing X P Appliance Repair Shop X P Appliance Store X P Aquatic Nursery X P Art Center C P Art Gallery X P Art Shop X P Asphalt/Concrete Batch Plant X C Auction Establishment X P Auto Body Shop X P Automobile Garage X P Automobile Sales X P Automobile Service Facility (excluding body shop) X C Dyer (retail, collection & distribution only) X P Bakery (on premise sales only) X P Bakery (manufacturing, packaging) X P Banks X P Barber Shop X P Barns X X Beauty Shop X P Bed and Breakfast Inn X X Beekeeping X X Beer Depot X P Beverage Manufacturing X P Billiard Room X P Blacksmith X P Boarding /Rooming House C X Boathouse P X Book Store (retail) X P Bottling of Beverages X P Bowling Alley X P Bus Depot X P Bus Garage X P Bus Repair Shop X P Flea Market X X Candy Manufacturing X P Candy Store X P Cash Crops X X Caterer X P Cement Manufacturing X C Cemetery C P Charitable Institutions X X Church C P Cigar /Cigarette Manufacturing X P Cleaners (collection & distribution only) X P Cleaners (commercial) X P Clinic X P Clothing Manufacturing X P Clothing Store (retail) X P Clubs, private X P Clubs & Semi - Public Structures X X Coffee & Tea Store X P Colleges (including residence halls) X X Commercial /Residential Structures X X Community Centers C P Concrete /Asphalt Batch Plant X C Condenseries X X Confectionary Store X P Contractor's Yard X P Convenience Foods, Prepackaged (wholesale /distributing) X P Convention Hall X P Cosmetic Manufacturing X P Creameries X X Crockery Store (retail) X P Heating Supply Store X P USE R -3 M -3 Dairying X X Dance Hall X P Dancing School X P Day Care Center C C Day Care Center, Family (8 or less children) P X Day Care Center, Family (9 or more children) C X Delicatessen X P Dental Office X P Directional Sign for Hotel /Motel X C Distributing Establishment X P Dormitories X X Dress Shop (retail) X P Drive -Up /Drive -Thru Restaurant X C Drug Store X P Dry Cleaners (collection & distribution only) X P Dry Goods Store (retail) X P Dwelling, Multiple Family P X Dwelling, Single Family P X Dwelling, Two Family P X Dyeing Establishment X P Dyer (retail, collection & distribution only) X P Educational lnstitution X C Electrical Supplies (retail) X P Electrical Supplies (wholesale & distributing) X P Elementary Schools (public & private) C X Enameling Establishment X P Engraving Establishment X P Exhibition Hall X P Explosive Manufacturing 9 Storage X C Extraction of Sand /Gravel /Other Raw Materials X C Family Day Care Center (8 or less children) P X Family Day Care Center (9 or more children) C X Fat Rendering X C Feed Lots X X Fertilizer Manufacturing X C Field Crops, Raising of X X Fish Farms X X Fish Market (retail) X P Fish Market (wholesale) X P Flea Market X X Floriculture X X Florist Shop (retail) X P Food Products (retail) X P Food Products Packing X P Forestry X X Fraternity or Sorority House X X Freight House X P Fruit & Garden Produce Roadside Stand X X Fruit & Vegetable Store X P Funeral Home C P Fur Farms X X Furniture Upholstering /Refinishing /Repairs /Sales X P Garbage or Rubbish Dumping X C Gift Shop X P Glue Manufacturing X C Governmental Structure C P Grazing X X Greenhouse (commercial) C P Grocery Store X P Group Homes: Less than 8 persons P X More than 9 persons P X Less than 15 persons P X More than 16 persons C X Gypsum Manufacturing X C Halfway House C X Hardware Store X P Hay X X Heating Supply Store X P High Schools (including Junior High) C X JO P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use X = Not Allowed P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use X = Not Allowed USE R -3 M -3 Heating Supply Store X P High Schools (including Junior High) C X Hobby Store X P Hogs, Raising of X X Hoisery Shop X P Home Occupation P X Homeless Shelter /Center X X Horticultural X X Hospital, Mental or Psychiatric X X Hospital C P Hotel X X Hotel/Motel Directional Sign X C Pharmaceutical Manufacturing X P Ice Cream Store X P Insurance Office X P Interior Decorating Studio X P Photographers Supplies X P Jail /Prison X P Jewelry Store X P Junior High School C X Junk Yard X C Plumbing Supply Store X P Kennel X X Kindergarten School C X Knitting Mill X P Prison/Jail X P Laboratory (experimental or testing) X P Laundromat (coin operated) X P Laundry Service Establishment X P Libraries X P Lime Manufacturing X C Liquor Store, Packaged X P Livestock Raising X X Lodges and Clubs (private) X P Lodging /Boarding House X X Lunchroom X P Radio Broadcasting Studio X P Machine Shop X P Marina X P Meat and Fish Market X P Medical Office X P Mental or Psychiatric Hospital X X Metal Stamp Manufacturing X P Migratory Laborer Housing X X Mink, Raising of X X Monument Sales X P Mobile Home Park (excluding commercial sale of) C X Motel X X Motel /Hotel Directional Sign X C Multiple Dwellings P X Municipal Structures C P Museums C P Music Store X P Musical Instrument Manufacturing X P Rubber Stamp Manufacturing X P News Agency (except printing & publishing) X P News Stand X P Newspaper Printing X P Notions Store X P Novelty Manufacture X P Nurseries & Commercial Greenhouses C P Nursery School C X Nursing Home C P Shoe Store (retail) X P Office Supply Manufacturing X P Oil Drilling X C Open Storage (NOT junk, autos, salvage, etc) X P Optical Store X P Orchards X X Orchards and Tree Farms X X Outdoor Motor Vehicle Racing or Test Track I X C USE R -3 M -3 Packaged Liquor Store X P Paddocks X X Paint Store X P Painting Establishment X P Paper Products Manufacture (not paper pu p X P Parking Lot C P Parks P P Parochial School, Elementary C X Parachial School, Jr. High & High School C X Pasturage X X Pet Shop (excluding open kennel) X P Petroleum Refining X C Pharmaceutical Manufacturing X P Pharmacy X P Philanthropic Institution X P Photographers Studio X P Photographers Supplies X P Picture Framing Store X P Pipe Store X P Plaster of Paris Manufacturing X C Plastic Goods Manufacturing X P Plumbing Supply Store X P Pool Room X P Poultry Farms X X Printing Establishment X P Prison/Jail X P Private Clubs or Lodges X P Professional Service Office X P Psychiatric or Mental Hospital X X Public Parks P P Public Recreation Structure X P Public Utility Structure C C Quarry, Extraction of Sand /Gravel /Etc. X C Race Track (automobile) X C Radio Broadcasting Studio X P Radio Relay Structure X P Radio Store (retail) X P Railroad Depot X P Railroad Yard X C Real Estate Office X P Recreational Structure, Public X P Repair /Service of Vehicles X P Refining Operation X X Refreshment Stand X I P Religious Structure X X Restaurant X P Restaurant w /Drive -Up or Drive -Thru X C Retirement Community P X Riding Stable X X Roadside Stand, Garden /Orchard Produce X X Rooming /Boarding House C X Rubber Products Manufacturing X P Rubber Stamp Manufacturing X P Sanitarium X X Schools, Private & Public C X Vocational X X Semi - Public Structures & Clubs X X Service Industry (laundry, Leaning & dyeing) X P Sheet Metal Product Manufacturing X P Shoe Repair X P Shoe Store (retail) X P Shooting Range, Private X Sign Manufacturing X P Silos X X Single Family Dwelling P X Skating Rink X P Slaughterhouse X C Sludge Dispoal X X P = Permitted Use C = Conditional Use X = Not Allowed USE R -3 M -3 Smelting (tin/copper /zinctiron ore) X C Sod Farming X X Soda Fountain X P Soft Drink Stand X P Sorority or Fraternity House X X Sporting Goods Manufacturing X P Stables X X Stationary Store X P Stockyards X C Substance Abuse Treatment Facility X X Swimming Club, Private (non - profit) C X Tailor Shop X P Tannery X C Tavern X P Tea and Coffee Store X P Telecommunication Towers /Antennas X P Television Broadcasting Studio X P Television Relay Structure X P Television Repair Shop X P Television Store X P Theater (except drive -in) X P Tinsmithing X P Tobacco Store X P Toiletry Manufacture X P Toy Manufacture X P Tree Farms and Orchards X X Truck Farming X X Truck Terminal X P Two Family Dwelling P X Universities, Including Residence Halls X X Utility Structures, public C C Vegetable and Fruit Store X P Viticulture X X Vocational School X X Warehouse X P Water Heating Equipment Manufacturing X P Water Treating Equipment Manufacturing X P Wild Crop Harvesting X X Wireless Telecommunication Towers /Antennas X P Wholesale Establishment X P Wholesale Market X P Wood Products Mfg. (exc mfg of paper pulp & plastics) X P !a ( 0 O.fHKG H ON THE WATER City of Oshkosh Application Rezoning * *PLEASE TYPE OR PRINT USING BLACK INK ** APPLICANT INFORMATION Petitioner: Petitioner's Address: >/i / City: Telephone #: ✓ �� 7" Fax: ( ) Status of Petitioner (Please Check): Own— ❑ Petitioner's Signature (required): fjt�� Cam° SUBMIT TO: Dept. of Community Development 215 Church Ave., P.O. Box 1130 Oshkosh, Wisconsin 54903 -1130 PHONE: (920) 236 -5059 Date: l� State: G Zip:, 1 OtheT Contact # or ❑ Prospective Buyer I' Date: OWNER INFORMATION ' r te'/ Owner(s): L'l� -�✓ Dater i Owner(s) Address: i�r�� City: State: Zip: Telephone #: ( ) Fax: ( ) Other Contact # or Email: Ownership Status (Please Check): ❑ Individual ❑ Trust ❑ Partnership ❑Corporation Property Owner Consent: (required) By signature hereon, I/We acknowledge that City officials and /or employees may, in the performance of their functions, enter upon the property to inspect or gather other informat necessary to process this application. I also understand that all meeting dates are tentative and may be postponed by the PI ng Service iv' ' in mplete submissions or other administrative reasons. Property Owner's Signature: x l, Date: ITV I' I'Y1► u ST Address/Location of Rezoning Req 13��1�000 Tax Parcel Number Rezone property from: `° to Purpose for Rezoning: �� 25 Describe existing property development and land use: Describe proposed development and /or proposed land use: � � time schedule for development and /or use of the property: /,�/ ��/ S� / /� /��✓ c" 0 ❑ Tenant Staff 6 0 Date Reed I- I `" I ID /3 Zoning Adjacent to the Site: North: South: ��1/� East: / - 4 ,0- 2 G °� West: �ao�5�/ 2 �/� SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS — Must accompany the application to be complete. • Map of the immediate area showing property involved. Area to be rezoned must be outlined in color • A site plan drawn to readable scale showing present status of property and proposed development ❑ Street address, adjacent streets, intersections and any other information or landmarks to help identify the property ❑ Location of existing uses, structures, fences and signs and location of proposed uses, structures, fences and signs ❑ A narrative statement explaining the zone change and discussion of the project ➢ Application fees are due at time of submittal. Make check payable to City of Oshkosh. ➢ Please refer to the fee schedule for appropriate fee. FEE IS NON - REFUNDABLE SUMMARY OF PROCESS The City of Oshkosh Plan Commission and Common Council act on all zone changes. The petitioner or owner should be present at both the Plan Commission and Common Council meetings to discuss and answer questions regarding the request. Neighborhood opinion is an important factor in the decision - making process. For complex or controversial proposals, it is recommended that the petitioner conduct a neighborhood meeting to solicit public input prior to action by the Plan Commission and City Council. Planning Services staff is available to offer assistance in compiling a mailing list for the neighborhood meeting. Please note that a meeting notice will be mailed to all abutting property owners regarding your request. The application package is reviewed by Planning Services staff to determine conformance with adopted city plans, zoning requirements and development standards. A staff recommendation is prepared for consideration by the Plan Commission and Common Council. The petitioner will be provided with a copy of the staff report and meeting notice several days prior to the Plan Commission meeting. No notice is sent to the petitioner or owner regarding the Common Council's consideration of the request. Petitioners and owners are encouraged to contact Planning Services staff to find out when the request will be sent to the Common Council for review. The Plan Commission's decision is advisory only. The Common Council will make the final decision regarding all zone change requests. The Plan Commission may lay over requests to subsequent meetings if incomplete information is provided or additional questions or concerns are raised at the meeting. After the Plan Commission makes its recommendation, the request will be forwarded to the Common Council for consideration. This generally occurs three weeks after the Plan Commission meeting depending on the date the Council meeting is scheduled (the Council meets on the 2nd and 4 Tuesday of every month) and on the availability of a legal description for the zone change. Wisconsin State Statutes require a zone change to be published as Class II notice in the local newspaper, the City takes care of this publication requirement prior to the Council meeting. If Council approves the rezoning, the Ordinance is published in the newspaper on the following Saturday and will be effective on Sunday. City administrative offices are notified of the effective date of the Ordinance and will make changes to the official zoning map accordingly. For more information please visit the City's website at www.ci.oshkosh.wi.us/ Community _Development /Planning.htm REZONE -NW CORNER OSBORN AV SISTERS OF THE SORROWFUL & MASON ST MOTHER GENERALA PC: 09 -21 -10 9056 N DEERBROOK TRL MILWAUKEE WI 53223 RE 1145 DEVONSHIRE DR DEHART CHRISTOPHER STEINER ELIZABETH 1307 KENSINGTON AVE OSHKOSH WI 54902 6244 KOSMER JOHN F 1315 KENSINGTON AVE OSHKOSH WI 54902 6244 WOLLERSHEIM JEFFREY /TRINA 1335 KENSINGTON AVE OSHKOSH WI 54902 6244 PROUD WAYNE / KRISTINE S 1405 KENSINGTON AVE OSHKOSH WI 54902 6246 RUSCH THOMAS N GABERT RICHARD PO BOX 3808 OSHKOSH WI 54903 3808 RE 1180 OSBORN AV & VAC LOT STINGLE CHAD M /KRISTINA 1230 DEVONSHIRE DR OSHKOSH WI 54902 6235 SMITH CYNTHIA A 1345 KENSINGTON AVE OSHKOSH WI 54902 6244 SCHNEIDER DENNIS R /SHARON 1425 KENSINGTON AVE OSHKOSH WI 54902 6246 LENTZ SCOTT A /AMY M 1124 MASON ST OSHKOSH WI 54902 6255 WIS DEPT OF MILITARY AFFRS 2400 WRIGHT ST MADISON WI 53704 RE 1415 ARMORY PLC KOTSCHI ADOLF D 1303 KENSINGTON AVE OSHKOSH WI 54902 6244 VILLARS KRISTINE S 1325 KENSINGTON AVE OSHKOSH WI 54902 6244 SIEBER NANCY L 1355 KENSINGTON AVE OSHKOSH WI 54902 6244 ROBLEE MATTHEW T /SARA G 1435 KENSINGTON AVE OSHKOSH WI 54902 6246 STREY CONSTRUCTION INC 5037 RIVERMOOR DR OMRO WI 54963 9428 RE MASON ST VACANT LOT VULCAN LANDS INC 1000 E WARRENVILLE RD 100 NAPERVILLE IL 60563 1444 RE 1301 KNAPP ST 15 FLE s Q 1,W - 1N --- 1-1 -14 -- - ,za i s �. ,z & z } ! q211 4 15 5, .. .. .�� h., R°'-d4"°C 1. o l]0w 1]f W' '' I TON ----------- €- - i f R ----------------- - - - -1- --- KENS11�4� -- . ® I E3 �,. - l/YC`l- f a f � .----- . -. -- Y ih� ------ - .. - - - -. k I I - -- ---- -- --- --- ;.,:4 15S7 155] 151 1 ,•, \ 13P ~ C n x .„�� '[' 1 +e l X7 1415 ARMORY PL �[yy��" 7" . x K �[ ��+ . ' x y. a \'\ •. , ,�qy Is } I C� ^_5A_ _zf DISCLAIMER REZONING PETITION A) This map Is It Is n n e i t h er a beaky recorded map nor N W CORNER O S B O R N AV s survey and It not Intended to be used as one. N fHKO /u data I�IJJ fl This drawing Is a compilation of records, s and Information located in various city, county &MASON ST OE THE WATER and stab offices and other sources affecting the area shown and It Is to be used for reference City of Oshkosh purposes only. The City of Oshkosh Is not re- Department Of sponsible for any Inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are found please contact the Community Development CityofOshkosh. Scale, 1 !! _ 250! — J 09109/1 o Created by - dff FLE 1 Op a: ' ow n Moil •> !. y X11 f� C A , is r �, �w MEN �+ °O LA oI .rI CC ' motO.: d lb■[!" Ali � 1111��1111 I Iltlllllll n nr,,, in-� i :: l !1L ! w.►�:o i •II..�■nli �r ir ii iq il l IF t9T JS A G IF s i111 r DISCLAIMER This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and it is not intended to be used as one. This drawing is a compilation of records, data and information located in various city, county and state offices and other sources affecting the area shown and it is to be used for reference purposes only. The City of Oshkosh is not re- sponsible for any inaccuracies herein contained. If discrepancies are found, please contact the City of Oshkosh. Created by - dff REZONING PETITION NW CORNER OSBORN AV & MASON ST Scale: 1" = 250' N OJHKOIH ON THE WATER City of Oshkosh Department of Community Development 09/09/10 N